Future generations will not know the history of the US and therefore the many rights they have as citizens. They will be easily controlled and abused.

That's a stretch. I don't see history books or the Internet being abolished anytime soon. Laws will probably hang around too.

Nope not a stretch. Google wiping "unconfirmed" information, liberals convincing people laws promote racism, hatrid, etc.etc. history books are updated annually by publishers whom are among the richest of the rich (Thomson family in Canada and others). I'm white, not poor (but not rich), university educated but I agree whole heartedly that history slowly is modified to support personal agendas.

It occurs to me that especially when we are talking about the elite (ie Black Nobility) they are obsessed with family and lineage connections. Where you come from is maybe more important than what you are.

We see the exact opposite being encouraged among the lower classes. We are being actively encouraged to abandon our anscestry, to destroy family. Maybe destroy is too strong a word, but look at divorce rates. Families are not sticking together like they used to. How many of you know who your great-great family members are, or even where you come from. I know my gramps on my dad's side came over from sweden, my mom's side I know nothing. Her family wasn't even interested in knowing, and she definitely came from a very poor background. But fact is, my entire knowledge of my ancestry dies 2 gens back.

Just adding that maybe this is being encouraged toward a general goal of erasing history as well. But why? Because it makes everyone feel alone and lost in space. Every man is an island. Part of the discouraging any kind of solidarity.

Great fucking point.

Which is why I think a psy op should be created to sick the useful idiots on the Albert Pike statue. That will surely get the elite's panties in a bunch.

You beat me to the Pike statue reference!

For those not in the know, the only confederate statue in Washington DC was of Albert Pike a famous 33rd degree Freemason of the Scottish Rite. He wrote Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_General_Albert_Pike

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 101307}

an old and tatty statue !

maybe needs refurbishment, some paint maybe...

We see the exact opposite being encouraged among the lower classes.

Do you think the lower classes are being encouraged to disconnect from their ancestry simply as economic manipulation? Inheritance of resources along familial lines is the primary mode of transmission of wealth across time. This is how the 1% stays the 1%.

Lower classes are encouraged to "spend their kids' inheritance" or at least ensure that they aren't a "burden" to their kids in their old age. This is a total crock of shit. Kids are the original long-term care insurance, ffs. This is a profound shift - across time and cultures, kids have traditionally taken responsibility for their parents well being after they become infirm. I see the Boomer generation being when this shift happened.

How many of you know who your great-great family members are

I knew six of my great-grands personally, and have a photo with one of my great-greats holding me as an infant. I feel a strong connection with the past and have an active historical memory. I knew and spoke with people who lived before there was an income tax, for instance. It's easier to envision the alternative (not having an income tax) when you've personally interacted with people who lived under those conditions.

I think the primary motivation for disconnecting people from their ancestry is economic, but it might be about killing inherited ideas too.

I think there is power in extended family beyond the economic, but for sure economics are part of it. There is something of power in a nationalistic sentiment, the identification as part of a group. I am considering the family a small nation here. There is also the bargaining power of belonging to a group.

I can think of a lots of intangible things that would benefit from the existence of strong extended family structures. Having never lived in one though, I am sure one who has would have a better explanation of the benefits.

Dudes!! Top fucking kek to all you posters above me with your observations!

Just adding that maybe this is being encouraged toward a general goal of erasing history as well

Worth noting that Orwell spoke explicitly not merely about 'erasing history' but creating it as they go along, including the fakery of military events and technology. Food for thought.

Excellent point!

that video is garbage, ditto all the 'rockets dont work in a vacuum' ones.

that video is garbage

Explain yourself.

Families aren't sticking together because women are more liberated than ever, and properly raising kids requires one bread winner and one caretaker. It's the same thing as what is happeneing in japan, just to a lesser degree. Women are to busy to have children, American women just haven't realized that it's because of their jobs.

Families aren't sticking together because it is now socially acceptable for two people to not have to stay in a loveless marriage.

it makes everyone feel alone and lost in space

that, in turn, makes you a weak, sensitive, emotional, insecure person, easy to control, and with a tendency to consume more. Looks to me like things are going as planned.

Speaking of white-washing history, George Orwell a perfect example of the establishment deradicalizing prominent figures. He's known for 1984, which many believe to be an anti-socialist work- yet he himself was a socialist, having fought with the syndicalists in the Spanish Civil War.

And Animal Farm. I read that one first, I think.

He's known for 1984, which many believe to be an anti-socialist work

Who's stupid enough to believe 1984 was anti-socialist? Orwell was an open and proud socialist. He was strongly opposed to authoritarianism, especially communism.

Seriously - who thought Orwell was in any way anti-socialist?

I've had pro-capitalists in this sub literally tell me to "read 1984" to "educate myself on socialism," so although maybe it's confirmation bias on my part but it seems like a widely held misconception.

Who thought Orwell was in any way anti-socialist?

You'll see that mentality on most of Reddit, to be honest. I see DAE 1984? posts all the time

It's mind-numbingly stupid...Orwell was incredibly hostile towards communism, fascism, Nazism and all other forms of authoritarian dictatorship.

Oh well. Guess none of them have ever read 1984 or Animal Farm...

Honestly, I doubt most of the users on Reddit that discuss the book have even read it. It's something I noticed when I started hanging out on the books subreddit. There was so little actual discussion going on; it felt like redditors like showing off that they have read a lot (to seem intellectual). Discussing books was the same three Sanderson/King books ad nauseam, but beyond that, I got the distinct impression redditors don't actually read.

1984 is an eye opener, TV or movie NEVER does it justice, they always paraphrase and sanitize the language and events in the books.

You know, it's beyond just the attack on Southern culture and history. It's an attack on the white race in general. Confederate statues aren't the only things being replaced. Western history in general is being rewritten, according to the BBC, medieval Europe was a multicultural society. And no, this isn't just for a movie or TV series, it's in videos they intend to be used for actual education.

Let's not pussyfoot around the issue, the perpetrators themselves don't deny it if you ask them, they cheer at the fact whites will be a minority in the U.S and Europe, they cheer at the destruction of our history and culture. People have a right to hold on to their culture, that's our humanity, and they are wiping it away before our very eyes. I usually cringe at the 1984 comparisons because they are way overblown and cliche, but this is the most real and scary Orwellian comparison there is. They won't stop until we blend all our cultures together into one unidentifiable fabricated mess, we'll have no ties to our history and from that point on, the elite can do whatever they damn well please.

Side note somewhat, but I was once told by an elderly gentleman who worked for big brother his entire life that 1984 was actually written as a guide book for the elitist children of the planet. It was written to show what direction the world needed to take. How "Orwellian" has the world become since 1949? Granted this gentleman was a true genius. Sometimes apparently batshit crazy and other times a true pleasure to have a conversation with, truly enlightening. Our time together has haunted me for years as tech he described well over a decade ago becomes public/mainstream. If half of what he told me is true.....this rabbit hole has no end.

Would love to hear you elaborate on your time spent with him, if you don't mind. Here or in a pm.

Would definitely not post as they were private conversations but would share themes of conversations over PM probably.

Would like to hear those themes!

you need to write down what you remember, no need to name , but record for posterity the tales.

The 1984 comparisons don't feel cliche to me, they feel incredibly accurate. Have you read it in a while? This IS 1984.

Slaves had their history completely stolen from them. Completely. I can say where my ancestors came from in Northern Europe because my ancestors came here by choice but little to none of my black friends know where they are from, besides Africa. That is a true destruction of one's personal history, not the movement of a statue into a museum.

I can say where my ancestors came from

How far back can you confidently trace your ancestry? And how far back can you do so with documentation rather than just word of mouth?

Pretty damn far, given Ellis Island records and records back in Denmark, Sweden and Northern Ireland, not to mention Clan Chisolm records. In fact, my great grandfather's birth certificate, diary and Ellis Island data was donated to and is currently displayed in a Danish Immigrant museum, like the statue in Charlottesville will be.

Your great grandfather in only three generations past. Considering how far back human history is supposed to go, doesn't that strike you as odd?

Not really, seeing as how I was using him as an example and also mentioned clan records, which do go very far back.

How far back?

May I ask what you're trying to get at here? Unless you really want to here about the genealogy of a Lowland clan.

I haven't seen any documented evidence that humans go back more than a few generations. It strikes me as odd.

Well alright. That was actually a refreshing answer. Please explain more of this theory, it's a new one to me and I would legit love to hear a breakdown of it. (Btw, according to my aunt's ancestry.com hobby, I can trace back to the 1700s on my paternal grandfather's mother's side. That was when my Chisolm ancestor got into some shit over the Jacobites and presumably lost his land and records.)

And how many folks in Africa can actually trace their heritage? Do you have any idea how bad record keeping is in Africa even today? If you have enough money, you can buy whatever identity you'd like from the government.

Allowing the destruction of history because of some negatives is not noble, sorry. Failure to allow people to learn from history means they will undoubtedly repeat it. Sticking a statue in a building, requiring more money to preserve its existence because it is preferable to have it out of sight and out of mind is ludicrous.

My point was that it's hypocritical to say that one's personal history is so important when these statues are of people that defended their right to rip others away from their history. African culture and history was and still is heavily dependent on oral tradition, as it is with most who lived in a climate that did not have a lot of easy food sources available. When people were stolen from their families and cultures, that oral tradition was lost to them and the world. That's not their fault.

Furthermore, for black people in the US today, their personal history has become one that has started in the US, out of necessity. That means that slavery is going to be more personal and touchy. It also means that things like Black History Month are going to be more important, as it's a way for a culture to connect to a collective history that is still new and growing. Do you feel the same protectiveness over the protection of history when talking about Black History month, or do you draw the line at history that happened to white people?

Well, I'm not white so let's just shut that down. I can't trace my history either because they don't keep great records in the ME, or they were destroyed during regime changes. Destruction of history is a popular thing in some places for good reason; the masses can't learn from the past.

You have no clue about history if you think the confederacy was all about slavery, ffs. Go to the history channel and look up stuff on Abe Lincoln. He wasn't an abolitionist.

How can ancestry be important when the family unit is not? How many Maury Povich shows do you need to see where it is proven that this guy is not the father before you realize that oral tradition of passing down information it so error prone and unproductive that it is ignorant to argue it's importance.

Black history month is a crock, why isn't everything incorporated? Why is segregation still so important in the US? Why are people still defined by the color of the skin instead of the content of their character?

Why is EVERYTHING brought back to race/ethnicity? Because TPTB prefer infighting, and these divides have proven most useful, period.

My apologies for my assumption. Also, that's sincerely sad that you can't have access to the same kind of records that I am privileged enough to have. The Middle East's history is an especially sad one to lose, given that its the cradle of civilization.

I am aware that the Civil War was not fully about slavery. However, it did involve slavery and the impact of it emotionally on the country has been massive. It's an unavoidable part of the conflict that has to be brought up when we talk about the Confederacy. It's too fraught to ignore.

The only reason we make assumptions based on race is because every study, statistic, standard is broken down into race. Race disparity was conceptualized by Darwin. The fact that we keep making it historically significant furthers the divide - it does not to mend it.

Content of character and most qualified for a task are what we should focus on, but we don't.

How exactly do you logic your way through the racial disparities in professional sports?

I do make assumptions based on appearance. My mother may have taught me to not judge a book by it's cover (which I rarely assume content), but I counter with what would make me pick up a book in the first place? Color of skin aside - the way people present themselves is important, period. Wearing pants sagging around your ass, showing your underwear merits judgement regardless of race. You've chosen to appear a certain way because you desire to be viewed a certain way.

If I want to be viewed as a professional - I look the part. I want the doctor performing surgery walking in dressed well or in appropriate attire for the job, not in leathers looking like he just split off from his biker gang.

Please tell me, what happens when a person of color walks into a black establishment wearing loafers, a polo and khakis, while speaking eloquently?

Biases exist, but to keep beating people over the head with why the biases exist while yelling to end the bias is counterproductive not to mention counterintuitive.

I disagree with the idea that the concept of race was conceptualized by Darwin. He wasn't a social darwinist. Anyway, I dont think that people needed a reason to find ways to be divisive, we're really good at it. Whether we judge people by race, religion, class, sect or class, humans have always found a way to view someone as less human than them. It just so happens that race is an easy way to do this because that person looks different.

As for race and sports, let me preface this by saying that I'm a hockey fan so that's where my mind automatically goes. Hockey is a sport with incredible classism issues because of the costly nature of it. You don't see many black athletes in it, though the number is rising, because of price both in the fact that you arent likely to get a large scholarship to play it and because of the large upfront costs to play. Anyway, there are some black people with an evolutionary quirk that happens to allow them to oxygenate their blood better. That would allow them to be better athletes.

I don't aim to divide people and I do feel passionately about trying to improve the world for others. The way that I feel is the best way to do that is to bring things out into the open where they can be looked at, studied and dealt with. I say that because I have had and likely will continue to have racist thoughts. The way Ive dealt with them best is to look at them and deal with it instead of denying it and I believe that this kind of introspection is an important part of being a good human.

As far as fashion, I've known black people who sag their pants and white people who sag their pants. In general, what those people had in common was a shared culture where that was seen as a good look and commonly, issues with classism and access to clothes that connotate a higher class to most people. That's all variable though and you'll get different reactions in different places. Classism is a son of a bitch.

You have no clue about history if you think the confederacy was all about slavery, ffs.

Is that so?

Really you use a Wikipedia source on a conspiracy thread. Bless your heart!

Ain't wrong though.

Oh silly me, should've used a screenshot of a greentext. Are you saying that speech doesn't exist because it's on Wikipedia or is this just a lame attempt at deflection because you'd like to ignore it?

Does a YouTube video work for you? How about just the text of the speech? Will you find a lame excuse to ignore that too? Or will you just not respond and continue to believe what you want regardless of the facts?

Guess you're going with option two. Typical for a Trump cultist.

Read Lincoln's inaugural speech Morally, Lincoln did the right thing, but he didn't do it simply because he was so noble. He did it for political reasons, and he did so after he said he never would multiple times.

Democrats in the south were concerned about state's rights, about their economy and about the fact they had lost the Whitehouse. They weren't as concerned about state's rights when a Democrat was in office. They just didn't want a Republican telling them what they could and couldn't do. Despite the fact that Lincoln never said he would free slaves, and he was not an abolitionist.

When Lincoln tried to reinforce a federal military post in the South, the Confederates didn't take too kindly to what they perceived to be an aggressive act. The Civil War is referred to as the War of Northern Aggression because that is exactly how it was viewed.

To say a war was fought over a single issue (slavery) is either ignorant or obtuse. Lincoln only ended slavery as a final blow to cripple the Confederacy for their actions against the Union.

When Southern Democrats gave up their seats in the federal government by choosing to secede this allowed Republicans to pass: The Homestead Act, which was a blow to slave owners. New tariffs, the South wanted free trade. The Revenue Act to pay for the war, but the first of many versions of income taxes Transcontinental Railroad legislation National Banking

All these things were seen as overreaches by Democrats from the South, but they lost influence in federal government because of population growth in the industrialized North. So the South decided they wanted out of the Union because they knew they were going to be outvoted and the federal government was no longer going to be looking out for the South's best interests.

It all sounds very familiar. Because history has been augmented to make people believe certain conflicts revolved around a single issue. Looking through a different lens, it becomes easy to understand why history is so often repeated.

If you have enough money, you can buy whatever identity you'd like from the government.

you now there intense govt ID and background checking on legal immigrants form first/second world countries than people from third world countries whose govts have shit records.

and of course 'illegals' if they are not honest migrants would have even worse legit paperwork and history.

bureaucrats tend to do everything as the paperwork allows, give them a 8x11 and they will count the letters.

they are victims of their own system. they then inflict their travesties onto peoples.

Then they should take issue with the people who sold them into slavery in the first place, their AFRICAN owners. BTW, my skin is white but my ancestors never owned slaves. In fact, they were slaves - in Ireland. I shit on your virtue signal.

Sure, their sellers were African. After all is said and done, however, they were brought to the US and owned largely by white people which effected the US culture. And none of my family owned slaves either and I'm sure that some of my Viking forebears either were slaves or owned them. That, however, is inconsequential to the issue at hand. I'm not a victim here, and I'm not a perpetrator. I'm simply saying that another cultural group's history is being invalidated by the OP. If that's value signalling, then ok.

"sure they were sold into slavery, no big deal" lol. then they worked here, were housed and eventually freed. Probably freed by some of the people who's statues you are arguing to tear down. Some people are evil and treated their slaves poorly, also some bosses are evil and treat their workers poorly today. Isn't it interesting that the American slaves did well enough to have children and produce enough offspring to have a major population in America today? Some other countries castrate their slaves, and/or treat them so poorly that they cannot produce a population. Some of these countries still have slaves today.

None of what you said changes the fact that people were kept as possessions in this country and that it has effected our culture in a way that should not be ignored or played down.

I can agree with you that 1. people were slaves, 2. it effected culture in a variety of ways. I disagree that the "remedy" for this "effect" is to remove historical statues.

I believe that those statues cause a lot of people to be offended due to an awful past and that it diminishes white history by nothing if those statues are put into a museum, if the populace wants that. Which Charlottesville seems to be in favor of.

I have no idea where my ancestors came from I am white. I din du nuffin.

I'm sorry to hear that and I hope that gives you a sense of understanding with other people who dont have a connection to their ancestry.

It doesn't I really never cared about it and why would I? Ive also know white people that were adopted and didn't know their family history. Felt more sorry the fact they were adopted not because of a missing family history. Who cares? Seems more like you are seeking reasons to pitty black people. The negative association we keep bringing up is that all black people's history is only slavery. Which is completely wrong. Just as many white people have been slaves as blacks. Slave and master society didn't just appear because white people found black people. Mostly Id just stop falling for the white guilt narrative and stop pitting people that are entirely capable individuals.

You may not care about and that is fine. However, some people do care about that and I have empathy for what they feel is a loss to them. Some black people dont care about the loss, which is fine. Some black people feel that loss deeply, which is also fine. As I don't have the same life experiences to them, I'm willing to accede to their viewpoint and understand that some things will be hurtful to thwm that are not to me, and vice versa. If this is white guilt, then so be it. I prefer to think of it as treating people as I would like to be treated.

With pitty?

Why are do accede to their viewpoint? Just because someones feelings are hurt doesnt make their viewpoint valid. Would you understand your child bumped his head on a table causes pain? Would you let him whine about it for a week?

Slavery ended what, 150 years ago? Ya, its called white guilt and you have a horrible case of it. So much so it actually make you think that most black people are still in a deep pain because of "history" I haven't met any jews that bitch about the holocaust as if it affects them today either.

If someone's feelings are hurt, my telling them to stop whining will not stop that person from feeling hurt.

Ya those poor poor black people will just never get over it I guess. Maybe another 150 years.

Idk. I bet people will still be complaining about affirmative action in 150 years too.

You are so white and so fucking retarded.

You are so white

I'm actually decently tan at the moment! It is a farmer's tan so you are partially correct.

and so fucking retarded.

This is a bit ironic as I was not the one thinking that I had pitty for black people. After all, that would mean that I thought they were like something that was pitted, which makes no sense. You were thinking of 'pity'. Bless you though, you tried.

din du nuffin

Take that racist bullshit to T_D.

US history is not exclusive to white people. The ones enabling statues of Confederate heroes to be destroyed or removed from their origin location have something worse in mind for all Americans than the Civil War.

Removing a statue from its original location in a park and putting it in a museum where the context of it's can be better explained is a boon for American history. It'll still ve in existence, still available to the public and it will have even more educational value then it would have before. That does not harm Americans.

Out of sight-out of mind. Think of why, now in 2017, there is a call to destroy Confederate commemerative public art, or remove it from public view where its been since circa the end of the Civil War. Don't say "progress". Nothing is arbitrary and there are sinister reasons for this.

I really fail to see what sinister plans will come from this, Im going to be honest. Saddam had a Stargate and was working with the reptillians? I like that conspiracy, even of I don't believe it. The idea of NAFTA giving credits to Mexican factories that moved closer to the border in an effort to destabilize Mexico? I'll happily defend that conspiracy. But this idea that you're putting forward that there's a sinister plot to somehow destabilize white people by moving statues of Civil War generals? Yeah, no.

There is no such thing as a confederate hero. They served a villainous institution and government that enslaved millions.

Yes, that was an inaccurate word to use, and in no way do I consider either Union nor Confederate military leaders heroes. The people who continue loyalty to the Confederacy do still think of them as such, and my point is that all of this is manipulation of our minds by those with an agenda. It's about the destruction of the US and its people including our historical record as we more or less agree upon it.

It's time to stop victimizing any culture for things that happened to their ancestors. I am so over that. My ancestors lost everything to communism. I am first generation American. I have zero history. If they had simply felt sorry for themselves they would never have put their life back together. Some people lose everything, it sucks but you got to stop living in the past and get over it. It was bad for those slaves, but it's over. Time to pick up the pieces and move on. focusing on past emotional injuries is a distinction in psychology. Finally the people who were rounding up the slaves were just as guilty as the white slave buyers. The slavery market existed before the whites became customers. The slavery market in Africa still continues as Africans sell their own to the Mid East. It is horrible.

Removing a statue from a park and putting it in a museum is not a victimization of anyone.

It was the same for white slaves so..

lol

Man I was completely castrated on r/news a few weeks back for suggesting that destroying history is Orwellian and a great way to repeat mistakes of our ancestors. I was beheaded when I had the audacity to state the civil war was ultimately about states rights, slavery was the big issue, but still states rights. Finally I was trampled when I suggested things like legalizing MJ and climate change being adopted by states was not a threat to the federal governments authoritarian power. That these changes in policy were similar in context and if exacerbated could eventually lead to another civil war. History is written by the winners and changed by those in power to suit their needs.

"I had the audacity to state the civil war was ultimately about states rights, slavery was the big issue, but still states rights."

But you're repeating lies. If you would understand that people wouldn't have to keep telling you so.

Can you tell me how many times "states rights" is mentioned in the states secession papers?

Then count how many times slavery is mentioned

Did you know the confederacy put a rule in place saying that even if a confederate state banned slavery, they would still have to follow the overall rule saying runaway slaves from other states had to be returned.

There were no more states rights in the confederacy, there was just slavery.

Also how is removing statues that were put in in the past 100 years to fight back against civil rights for minorities destroying history? Are museums and history books being burned?

The statues were put there 100 years ago. That sounds pretty historical to me. Maybe the question of why they felt the need to put up a statue 100 years ago is an interesting historical question? One that won't be asked anymore when the statue is gone.

I go back and forth on this issue but it just seems a little creepy to want to wipe out a period of history and pretend it didn't exist. History's greatest feature is the ability to learn from it. I sort of think that the lesson future generations will take from this "statue destroying" period of American history is that emotional driven purges of historical monuments are pretty stupid.

Maybe the question of why they felt the need to put up a statue 100 years ago is an interesting historical question? One that won't be asked anymore when the statue is gone.

Considering the people loving the statues now don't know why they were erected, and think great things of them proves your hope of them existing leading to historical knowledge false.

The only people who will know truth are those who have the brain capacity to sit and read some words, most of these people could barely hang on to trump saying 3 word slogans

"I go back and forth on this issue but it just seems a little creepy to want to wipe out a period of history and pretend it didn't exist."

Tell me how removing statues is the same as removing from museums or books. If you can do that....

"I sort of think that the lesson future generations will take from this "statue destroying" period of American history is that emotional driven purges of historical monuments are pretty stupid."

I think what more people will realize is that erecting participation trophies to losing traitors wasn't a great idea. Especially since men like Lee hated the idea and wanted the confederacy stricken from everything.

"So insistent was Lee on extinguishing the fiery passions of the Civil War that he opposed erecting monuments on the war’s battlefields. “I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered,” he wrote.

Rather than raising battlefield memorials, he favored erasing battlefields from the landscape altogether, according to documents at the University of Virginia and the Library of Congress."

I don't give a shit what the Neo-nazis think about the statues. Why in the world would we base our historical preservation decisions on the view of fringe weirdos?

I'm also not judging whether the people who put up the statues were right or wrong. That's a different discussion. They did put up the statues. That is a fact and it is part of history.

It sounds like there is a lot of interesting discussion to be had over the choice to erect these monuments. Kinda sorta the reason we preserve history in the first place.

You do know it costs millions to upkeep these racist memorials to traitors right?

Why exactly should we keep wasting money on this?

If museums want them, they can have them.

"It sounds like there is a lot of interesting discussion to be had over the choice to erect these monuments. Kinda sorta the reason we preserve history in the first place."

Weird, I'm able to discuss all sorts of historic events without monuments being around.

I can understand that people who had ancestors who fought and died for the confederacy would want to keep monuments to it. It is part of their heritage. It doesn't mean they're proud of the fact, and it also needn't be that they are ashamed. It simply is, and they don't want to lose a monument that acknowledges that blood was lost for a cause.

Did we put up monuments to Timothy McVeigh?

Battlefield monuments for the soldiers who fought is different from monuments to traitors outside courthouses

The particular statue in question was erected in the Charlottesville town square in 1924 at the height of the KKK, Jim Crow and routine lynchings in that area of the country, so not hard to figure out the "historical" reason behind it, nor why a certain portion of the citizenry has decided it's time to take it down. It's not an attempt to erase history, it's an attempt to remember it as it was in all of it's ugliness.

It is really fascinating when you think about it though. These are monuments built celebrating the lives of the losers in a civil war. They were built in a time where there were few direct participants of that civil war remaining and the most recent military action meant that most had been actively fighting for America in WWI. I can't think of a similar situation existing anywhere else or any other historical time where a regional hero would have a statue in a nation that would consider them to be a traitor but at the same time the locals just finished fighting a major war side by side with the rest of the nation. That's what makes these statues unique and historical. How they affect our lives today is unclear to me.

If I thought that bringing down the statues would help in any way bring the country together and fix our racial issues then I would certainly be all for it. I actually think it does quite the opposite and sacrifices a bit of fascinating history in the process. The side that wants to take them down can find endless pieces of history to be outraged about. There are thousands of plantation houses, old slave ports, old forts, and other reminders of the civil war and slavery. I'd just prefer to move with extreme caution when it comes to destroying historical artifacts as a response to the insatiable thirst to right the wrongs of a bygone era.

I actually have read them. My perception of what they say obviously differs from yours. Ultimately owning slaves was a right the south did not want to lose. It was akin to economic catastrophe to the south. The right to own slaves was what they fought for. The states that agreed to return slaves were also partially dependent on the economic return slaves provided to the confederacy so it was in their interest to fight for it as well even though they didn't necessarily support slavery. It was the end of the south's way of life. They were willing to secede to preserve their wealth. The Federal government was willing to fight to preserve the union and hold on to valuable real estate. The point being, history regardless of how much we disagree with it is still history. It needs to be learned from. The fact that you believe that the civil war was fought over something noble like "freeing slaves" proves this. It was all economics. Finally to quote a great song, "they don't burn the books they just remove them..." Rage Against the Machine.

"The fact that you believe that the civil war was fought over something noble like "freeing slaves" proves this"

Would you mind pointing out where I said that? Cause I didn't, you're fighting a strawman

"they don't burn the books they just remove them..."

Again. Since when are books the same as statues erected to piss off uppity minorities fighting for equal rights?

....same as statues erected to piss off uppity minorities fighting for equal rights?

What a crock of shit. It's hilarious how people like you scoff when southern states claim the statues were erected as Historical monuments to the regions history...which is exactly WHY they were put up. To think they, the southern states, went through all that trouble just to be a pain in the ass to blacks is off the charts laughable.

The leftists will think up any outrageous lie that ignorant people will believe in order to tear down the historical statues that fly in the face of THEIR political beliefs...and THAT is as un-American as you can get. The left is desperately trying to erase American history so they can pervert the minds of the next generations.

To think they, the southern states, went through all that trouble just to be a pain in the ass to blacks is off the charts laughable.

What exactly was separate but equal? If not a whole lot of trouble to duplicate things and spend money just to be a pain in the ass for blacks?

"South Carolina didn’t hoist the battle flag in Columbia until 1961—the anniversary of the war’s start, but also the middle of the civil-rights push, and a time when many white Southerners were on the defensive about issues like segregation and voting rights."

"A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20th century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality."

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/whoseheritage-timeline150_years_of_iconography.jpg

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/the-stubborn-persistence-of-confederate-monuments/479751/

I hope you'll give those a read and consider the facts of history

"so they can pervert the minds of the next generations"

I'd be worried about the pussy grabbing president that raped at least one wife, cheated on all 3 and walks in on underage girls at his pageants while they change. But maybe we've got a different definition of perverted?

Why does the south need these participation trophies for traitors so badly?

You didn't say freeing slaves, I did but ultimately it's what you are referencing. That is the socially acceptable rhetoric for a ton of Americans dying. If modern rhetoric said it was about economics, power, and influence (as it was, as all wars are) it would be a lot less noble. Books aren't statues....they're books. It's the concept and it's a continuation of the Orwellian direction OP referenced, which is not desirable. I grow wearisome of your lack of independent thought.

No.

You said it was ultimately about states rights.

I said it was about slavery. What I referenced was strictly related to the south's reasoning written by themselves.

You then chose to deflect and say that I said something I never remotely referenced.

" It's the concept and it's a continuation of the Orwellian direction OP referenced, which is not desirable."

What about Lee's own thoughts on the matter?

"So insistent was Lee on extinguishing the fiery passions of the Civil War that he opposed erecting monuments on the war’s battlefields. “I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered,” he wrote.

Rather than raising battlefield memorials, he favored erasing battlefields from the landscape altogether, according to documents at the University of Virginia and the Library of Congress."

Go home shill.

By quoting the very person this debate surrounds, by referencing actual history, by expecting you to debate using what I say instead of what you imagine I said, I'm a shill?

Your circumventing the debate of whether removing historical artifacts is an Orwellian style maneuver to control history and turning it into a left wing rant. You're focusing on what the MSM wants you to focus on by vomiting up racial innuendos that the left wing feels is associated with these statues. You're espousing history as a way to prove this MSM/left wing rant that accomplishes nothing but removing focus from the fact that those in control are scrubbing history to suit their agenda. So I repeat....go home shill.

You literally imagined I said talking points. I pointed that out and you recognized it. Now you're back to that again.

Well said, trailboy, all of it.

u/GobBluth, trailboy has valid rebuttles and did listen to your arguements. Don't get caught up in terminologies. Moreover, why do you think Lee such a great judge of whether there should be monuments? Monuments are for the living, to serve as a reminder or connection to something that cannot be had in the present.

Thank you sir.

Removed. Rule 10.

Warning, further violations may result in a ban.

Removed. Rule 10.

Warning, further violations may result in a ban.

Wtf is rule 10?

Am I looking at the right secession papers? http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

I don't see much of either slavery or states rights mentioned.

history books and museums are getting banned?

most of these statues were erected in the 1900s and often as a counter to civil rights advancements to remind black folks where they were. These aren't historical heritage, they're monuments to traitors that fought against America and for the right to enslave people

if those whose mission is to pull down everything related to memorializing those dedicated to protecting slavery...then they had better start with monticello and the jefferson memorial.

jefferson owned significantly more slaves than any other president and matched many of the largest slave holders period.

he employed the most notoriously vicious plantation forman of his era.

he was central to the fight for 3/5 clause.

he was terrified of his slaves and slaves in general and supported sending freed ones to back to africa to prevent them from revolting.

even though he had no heirs, like washington, he refused to free his slaves at his death, unlike washington.

the core belief founding american idenity we owe to his eloquence excluded blacks, slaves, women, and unpropertied white men...and this indiputable based on his ketters to abigail adams. who knows, franklin editted the declaration changing pursuit of property to pusuit of happiness, maybe he also stuck through "rich white" between all and equal.

they won't do this, or even suggest it.

it is easy to go after non-slaving holding generals. my family's ancestral home was finally destroyed by katrina, but i doubt they'd even have bothered to look for us to burn it down, even though we were large planters of large planters in 4 states and descended from one of the founding VA bay colony charter holders.

i've no use for memorials to the glorious dead, but i have no use for memorials to any dead people, unless they were common men and women fighting for common men and women...but i won't hold my breath.

This entire country is and continues to be built on the backs of the exploited and the oppressed, slavery is now illegal other than that nothing has changed.

slavery is now illega

slavery has evolved, a couple of million slave in prisons, the rest slave in poor paid jobs.

80% serfs.

It saddens me to think about all the ancient civilizations we have zero or close to zero knowledge of because they were wiped from memory after war or the decree of some ruler. The Confederate statues are a reminder of our past for good or bad, and we should ask future generations to learn from them. Instead, they are being removed because feelings are more important than facts.

It`s a globalist plot to destroy identity -- among Southerners specifically, but ultimately impacting all Americans. It is appalling that historical preservation has now been linked by the media with Nazis and white supremacists. Those statues represent an historical context that happened 150 years ago and the tragic impact of a Civil War. They do not in any way symbolize current day racism. This false association was done deliberately.

Please don't use George Orwell to spread your revisionist Civil War history. The Civil War was about slavery. The idea that it was a northern aggression used to deny the freedom and liberties of the south is propaganda that was made up by the rich southern slave-owners who needed to convince the poor southern commoners to fight their war for them. While you see the Robert E Lee statue as a war hero, others see the statue as a constant reminder of the persecution and brutality their ancestors were subjected to. The liberal media didn't re-write history, they are just playing into a dichotomy that already exists when people refused to accept our violent and brutal past.

economics money and power.

everything else fits into that system.

I was in Hamburg, Germany a few years ago and saw these 2 monuments in a park near my hotel. One was a monument to the German soldiers who died in the First World War put there in the 1930s by the Nazi Government at the time. In the 60s and 70s there was disagreement about what was to be done with the monument - many wanted to get rid of it but then again it was a monument to war dead. In the end a companion monument was constructed to the atrocities of war. History is a complex beast. Bad things happened. People did bad things. As a former educator I don't believe in sugar coating and covering things up. Use these confederate monuments as teaching moments and create companion pieces or plagues to fully explain.

some countries have a harder time adding up to their mistakes and learn a lesson from them

this, imho the statues should stay for the fact they are history, re-write the plaque to speak the truth about what they did.

why tear down a general Lee statue when you can replace the plaque so people will see it and know the truth of who he was and what he stood for. these old statues should be teaching moments left there forever so we do not repeat the same mistakes.

george was woke af

Remember the outcry when terrorists in the Middle East were destroying monuments that were thousands of years old ? Outrage. Savages they were called for destroying history.

the 'left' also deny the history of workers fights and struggles.

I seriously doubt even the AFL-CIO remember any blue collar history.

Bobos, wall street and their 10% minions is the name of the game.

This is now my favorite quote :)

Theres a difference between studying history, and veneration of history's evil men.

You can teach about the history of WWII and Nazi Germany without having a big statue of Hitler or something in front of your school.

Most statues of confederates that exist around america weren't put up immediately post civil war or anything. They were put there during the civil rights movement to signal opposition to a better world. I think its understandable to pay attention to what these symbols mean and reconsider them.

This is about those fucking statues, isn't it?

The entire history of the confederacy was rewritten by the daughters of the confederacy in an attempt to paint the lost cause as a noble fight for states rights and not a defense of slavery, which it was. Read the Cornerstone speech, or the various state constitutions, or the Confederate Constitution, or the Declaration of Secession from South Carolina, and slavery is repeatedly mentioned as the foremost or only cause for secession and formation of the Confederacy.

Yet today, thanks to a whitewashing of history, it is often taught as "states rights" even though the Confederacy explicitly banned any state from abolishing slavery.

So yes, we are still fighting over the control of history, and as /r/history will tell you, it is not necessarily the victors who write history.

Would love to hear you elaborate on your time spent with him, if you don't mind. Here or in a pm.

My point was that it's hypocritical to say that one's personal history is so important when these statues are of people that defended their right to rip others away from their history. African culture and history was and still is heavily dependent on oral tradition, as it is with most who lived in a climate that did not have a lot of easy food sources available. When people were stolen from their families and cultures, that oral tradition was lost to them and the world. That's not their fault.

Furthermore, for black people in the US today, their personal history has become one that has started in the US, out of necessity. That means that slavery is going to be more personal and touchy. It also means that things like Black History Month are going to be more important, as it's a way for a culture to connect to a collective history that is still new and growing. Do you feel the same protectiveness over the protection of history when talking about Black History month, or do you draw the line at history that happened to white people?

You are so white and so fucking retarded.

Thank you sir.

If you have enough money, you can buy whatever identity you'd like from the government.

you now there intense govt ID and background checking on legal immigrants form first/second world countries than people from third world countries whose govts have shit records.

and of course 'illegals' if they are not honest migrants would have even worse legit paperwork and history.

bureaucrats tend to do everything as the paperwork allows, give them a 8x11 and they will count the letters.

they are victims of their own system. they then inflict their travesties onto peoples.

you need to write down what you remember, no need to name , but record for posterity the tales.

that video is garbage

Explain yourself.